Arxiv:1806.10385V2 [Math.GN] 21 Sep 2018 Htfrmtial Pcshspoet Seuvln Ooeconside One to Equivalent Is Each Property [19]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRODUCTS OF MENGER SPACES IN THE MILLER MODEL LYUBOMYR ZDOMSKYY Abstract. We prove that in the Miller model the Menger property is preserved by finite products of metrizable spaces. This answers several open questions and gives another instance of the interplay between clas- sical forcing posets with fusion and combinatorial covering properties in topology. 1. Introduction A topological space X has the Menger property (or, alternatively, is a Menger space) if for every sequence hUn : n ∈ ωi of open covers of X <ω there exists a sequence hVn : n ∈ ωi such that Vn ∈ [Un] for all n and X = S{∪Vn : n ∈ ω}. This property was introduced by Hurewicz, and the current name (the Menger property) is used because Hurewicz proved in [15] that for metrizable spaces his property is equivalent to one considered by Menger in [19]. Each σ-compact space has obviously the Menger property, and the latter implies lindel¨ofness (that is, every open cover has a countable subcover). The Menger property is the weakest one among the so-called selection principles or combinatorial covering properties, see, e.g., [4, 17, 25, 26, 32] for detailed introductions to the topic. Menger spaces have recently found applications in such areas as forcing [12], Ramsey theory in algebra [34], combinatorics of discrete subspaces [2], and Tukey relations between hyperspaces of compacts [14]. In this paper we proceed our investigation of the interplay between posets with fusion and selection principles initiated in [24]. More precisely, we concentrate on the question whether the Menger property is preserved by finite products. For general topological spaces the answer negative: In ZFC arXiv:1806.10385v2 [math.GN] 21 Sep 2018 there are two normal spaces X,Y with a covering property much stronger than the Menger one such that X × Y does not have the Lindel¨of property, see [29, §3]. However, the above situation becomes impossible if we restrict our attention to metrizable spaces. This case, on which we concentrate in the sequel, turned out to be sensitive to the ambient set-theoretic universe. Indeed, by [22, Theorem 3.2] under CH there exist X,Y ⊂ R which have the Menger property (in fact, they have the strongest combinatorial covering property considered thus far), whose product X × Y is not Menger. There 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 03E35, 54D20. Secondary: 54C50, 03E05. Key words and phrases. Menger space, concentrated space, semifilter, Miller forcing. The author would like to thank the Austrian Science Fund FWF (Grants I 1209-N25 and I 2374-N35) for generous support for this research. 1 2 LYUBOMYRZDOMSKYY are many results of this kind where CH is relaxed to an equality between cardinal characteristics, see, e.g., [3, 16, 23, 28]. Surprisingly, there are also inequalities between cardinal characteristics which imply that the Menger property is not productive even for sets of reals, see [27]. The following theorem, which is the main result of our paper, shows that an additional set-theoretic assumption in all these results was indeed necessary. Theorem 1.1. In the Miller model, the product of any two Menger spaces is Menger provided that it is Lindel¨of. In particular, in this model the product of any two Menger metrizable spaces is Menger. Theorem 1.1 answers [27, Problem 7.9(2)], [30, Problem 8.4] (restated as [31, Problem 4.11]), and [33, Problem 6.7] in the affirmative; implies that the affirmative answer to [1, Problem II.2.8], [5, Problem 3.9], and [16, Problem 2] (restated as [32, Problem 3.2] and [33, Problem 2.1]) is consistent; implies that the negative answer to and [1, Problem II.2.7], [6, Problem 8.9], and [36, Problems 1,2,3] is consistent; and answers [25, Problem 7] in the negative. By the Miller model we mean a generic extension of a ground model of GCH with respect to the iteration of length ω2 with countable support of the Miller forcing, see the next section for its definition. This model has been first considered by Miller in [20] and since then found numerous applications, see [11] and references therein. The Miller forcing is similar to the Laver one introduced in [18], the main difference being that the splitting is allowed to occur less often. The main technical part of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is Lemma 2.4 which is an analog of [18, Lemma 14]. The latter one was the key ingredient in the proof that all strong measure zero sets of reals are countable in the Laver model given in [18], the arguably most quotable combinatorial feature of the Laver model. As we shall see in Section 2, a big part of the proof of Theorem 1.1 requires only the inequality u < g which holds in the Miller model. However, we do not know the answer to the following Question 1.2. Is the Menger property preserved by finite products of metrizable spaces under u < g? If yes, can u < g be weakened to the Filter Dichotomy, NCF, or u < d? We refer the reader to [11, § 9] for corresponding definitions. We assume that the reader is familiar with the basics of forcing. The paper is essentially self-contained in the sense that we give all the definitions needed to understand our proofs. 2. Proofs First we collect some basic properties of Menger spaces. In most of the survey articles on combinatorial covering properties these are assumed to be a kind of folklore and are not stated (even without proofs) at all, see, e.g., [16, 30, 32, 33]. The second item of the following lemma is a partial case of [31, Proposition 2.1]. MENGER SPACES IN THE MILLER MODEL 3 Lemma 2.1. (1) If Z is a Menger space and X is a closed subspace of Z, then X is Menger when considered with the subspace topology inherited from Z. (2) If X is a countable family of Menger subspaces of a space Z, then S X is a Menger subspace of Z. (3) If X is Menger and K is compact, then X × K is Menger. Conse- quently, if X is Menger and Y is σ-compact, then X × Y is Menger. In particular, if X is Menger and Q is countable, then X × Q is Menger. Proof. 1. Let hUn : n ∈ ωi be a sequence of open covers of X. For every U ∈ Un fix an open subset W (U) of Z such that W (U) ∩ X = U, and set Wn = {W (U): U ∈ Un}∪{Z \ X}. Applying the Menger property of Z to the sequence hWn : n ∈ ωi of open covers of Z we can find a sequence hVn : n ∈ ωi such that Vn is a finite subset of Wn and n∈ω Vn = Z. n n S S Write each Vn in the form {W (Ui ): i<kn}, where Ui ∈ Un and kn ∈ ω, n and note that X is covered by {Ui : n ∈ ω,i<kn}. This proofs the Menger property of X. 2. Let hUn : n ∈ ωi be a sequence of covers of S X by sets open in Z. Let us write ω in the form SX∈X IX such that each IX is infinite and IX0 ∩ IX1 = ∅ for any X0 =6 X1 in X . Since X is a family of Menger spaces, <ω for every X ∈ X there exists a sequence hVn : n ∈ IX i such that Vn ∈ [Un] for all n ∈ IX and X ⊂ ∪Vn. Then X ⊂ ∪Vn which proves Sn∈IX S Sn∈ω that S X is Menger. 3. Let hUn : n ∈ ωi be a sequence of open covers of X × K. Let us fix x ∈ X and n ∈ ω. Since {x} × K is a compact subspace of X × K, there exists a finite Vx,n ⊂ Un such that {x} × K ⊂ ∪Vx,n. By [13, Lemma 3.1.15] there exists an open subset Ox,n ∋ x of X such that Ox,n × K ⊂ ∪Vx,n. Applying the Menger property of X to the sequence hOn : n ∈ ωi of open covers of X, where On = {Ox,n : x ∈ X}, we get a sequence hFn : n ∈ ωi of finite subsets of X such that X = Ox,n. Set Vn = Vx,n Sn∈ω Sx∈Fn Sx∈Fn and note that [ Ox,n × K ⊂ [ ∪Vx,n = ∪Vn x∈Fn x∈Fn for every n ∈ ω, and hence X × K = Sn∈ω ∪Vn. This completes our proof of the fact that X × K is Menger. Now suppose that Y = S K where K is a countable collection of compact subspaces of Y . It follows from the above that X × K is Menger for any K ∈K, and hence X × Y is Menger by the second item being a countable union of its Menger subspaces. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the fact that in the Miller model spaces with the Menger property enjoy certain concentration properties de- fined below. Recall that a subset R of a topological space X is called a Gω1 -set if R is an intersection of ω1-many open subsets of X. Definition 2.2. A topological space X is called weakly Gω1 -concentrated ω (resp. weakly ωGω1 -concentrated) if for every collection Q ⊂ [X] which 4 LYUBOMYRZDOMSKYY is cofinal with respect to inclusion, and for every function R : Q → P(X) assigning to each Q ∈ Q a Gω1 -set R(Q) containing Q, there exists Q1 ∈ [Q]ω1 such that X ⊂ R(Q) (resp. for every Q ∈ [X]ω there exists SQ∈Q1 Q1 ∈ Q1 with the property Q ⊂ R(Q1)).